| People v DiMassi |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00117 [113 AD3d 632] |
| January 8, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ralph DiMassi, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, KeithDolan, and Michael Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Guzman, J.), rendered July 16, 2010, convicting him of rape in the first degree, criminalsexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, robbery in the first degree,and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglaryin the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt of burglary in the first degree was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's interested witness charge is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rivera, 307 AD2d369, 369-370 [2003]; People v Brown, 209 AD2d 532 [1994]). In any event, thecourt's charge in this regard was proper (see People v Dees, 45 AD3d 602, 603 [2007]; People v Varughese, 21 AD3d1126, 1128 [2005]; Peoplev Lopez, 1 AD3d 458, 459 [2003]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.